tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN November 10, 2016 10:00am-12:01pm EST
newsday has an article on today's meeting between president obama and president-elect donald trump. thursday's oval office meeting is the symbolic start of the transition of power from president obama, a democrat who ushered in a sweeping health care law and brokered a nuclear deal with iran, and mr. trump, who has promised to wipe away those initiatives. here's more. what's the plan this morning? jeff mason, what will this meeting include? the meeting is probably going to be a little awkward. this is probably one of the first times that president obama and president-elect trump have
met in person. said hes secretary thought they had met once before but that was it. as far as what they were going to talk about, this will be the first time they begin laying the groundwork for transition of power. the president will probably discuss some of his policy priorities and his programs, perhaps the donald trump is considering repealing or getting rid of when he becomes president. obama may use the opportunity to talk about why they were good from his point of view and why donald trump should take it or hold on to them. otherwise no doubt just get sort of an overview of the job. and what will be expected of donald trump when he takes over on january 20. ast: this is sort of traditional meeting between the outgoing president and the president-elect. how are these things orchestrated?
how are they put together by the staff in order to go smoothly? guest: that's a good question. the president spoke yesterday about how much he admired and appreciated how those meetings and the transition generally was handled when he took over after his election in 2008 from president george w. bush. i think he's working hard and his staff are working hard to emulate that sense of graciousness despite their disappointment over the loss of hillary clinton. it's handled by the staff. it's handled by the president as well. the president called president-elect trump after his victory tuesday night. and issued the invitation for him to come this week. that's where it started and everything else is set up by the staff and will be set up by the
andsition team for trump the white house team over the next 70 days or so. host: are we expecting any public comments from the president or donald trump? guest: probably yes. we are meeting at 11:00 in the oval office. the press pool that covers the president is invited to go in for a spray. sort of towards the end of that meeting. i anticipate that president obama will make some remarks. they will take questions. we'll get a chance to see them take some pictures and hopefully hear some statements and perhaps get some questions answered as well. host: will melania trump be meeting with michelle obama? guest: yes. that meeting will be private. we won't have a chance to see them or ask them questions. that is also part of the tradition during the transition.
the president-elect and his spouse come and meet with the spouse of the president. they will have a chance to talk about her role and where things are at the white house probably and discuss the rope so that unique position of being first lady. jeff mason. he covers the white house for reuters. thanks for the preview. guest: my pleasure. president-elect trump and mike pence will meet with house speaker paul ryan today. of a -- between speaker trump and mr. ryan. the session is scheduled to take place at 12:30 p.m. eastern at the capitol hill club. pence is also expected to meet with vice president joe biden.
now charlie cook, editor and publisher of the cook political report gives his postelection day analysis. issues the preliminary that factor into the election and the challenges facing both democrats and republicans. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am kevin, the president of national journal. i am going to welcome everyone to national journal's day after the election event. the guests of today's program will be charlie cook, who will be breaking down the who, what, and why on yesterday's election. to handle some housekeeping, you will see two mics on either side of me in the center aisles. there will be a question-and-answer portion of
today's event. when it comes to that moment, we do welcome anybody that has a question to lineup behind the mics. when you are preparing to ask a question, we ask that you first state your name and organization. now, getting to introduce charlie. charlie is the founder, editor, as well as publisher of the "cook political report." he also is a political analyst for nbc news. charlie founded the "cook political report" in 1984, and what has been what i would call the bible for election and political trend analysis in washington. one other housekeeping matter, we have a hashtag today. it is #njdayafter. we certainly welcome you tweeting on social media about the event. without further ado, i would like to introduce charlie cook. [applause]
mr. cook: gee, i'm sorry we have nothing to talk about. [laughter] mr. cook: i first want to ask your indulgence. i did not go to bed last night. i got back to my hotel room in new york at about 5:00 a.m. and had an 8:00 train, and thought, you know, "what is the point?" if i am moderately incoherent, i hope you will understand. we have such a great crowd here. you know, i don't think any of us will ever have to be reminded where we were last night, what we were thinking. you know, a lot of times i can think back about elections and not quite remember. was that 1996? and everybody in this room -- we have been around politics for a very long time, and seen a lot of things.
you know, we saw the reagan tidal wave election in 1980, and the gingrich election tidal wave of 1994, all kinds of very, very interesting elections, but i have never experienced one that felt as much like a baseball bat on the side of the head as last night. you know, it seemed over the course of the day, it seemed kind of normal. i guess, being in a cab, i finally had a cab that had a wreck in new york. i figured that had to happen sooner or later. seems like it was an omen. we were doing something with chuck todd on msnbc. it was between 5:00, 5:30, and the first wave of exit polls came in. when they give you the first wave, they don't have the first
line of clinton/trump, something like male, female, party, demographics, but they deliberately don't give you the bottom line. you have to do the math in your head, looking at gender. looked like it was probably clinton ahead by about 3, which was not far out of line with where a lot of the polling was. it wasn't until we got deeper in the evening, particularly when starting looking at specific states, that we started seeing anomalies -- wait a minute, this is not heading where we all thought. and i think historians and political scientists and pollsters and operatives and all kinds of political aficionados are going to be pouring through the data for years to come to find out what exact we happened, why we did not see it, and how it got to be so underestimated.
not, you know, when you think about what this election meant, it was an unprecedented rejection of so many things. it was a rejection of, in no particular order, hillary and bill clinton, of the republican party establishment, of the national establishment. when you think about it, we have five living presidents, none of them have endorsed donald trump. bob dole was the only living former republican presidential nominee who endorsed him. of the forbes' 100 ceo's, not one has made a contribution to the trump campaign. best i could tell, there were two major newspaper endorsements. one of the "las vegas review journal" and the "national enquirer," and i didn't know they did endorsements.
[laughter] mr. cook: it is like wow -- we are going to be unpacking this for a long time. as i am sure, many of you have been glued to various sites, you know that secretary clinton pulled ahead by 2/10 of one point right now on the popular vote. that five dollars will get you a cup of coffee. what is interesting is that during the 19th century we had split electoral college popular vote outcomes three times. none during the 20th. and now, we have had two in the first 16 years of the first 21st century. so we had 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and now, 2016. the thing is, we knew that this election was going to be about change. i mean, we kind of knew that. and on one level, it is not
terribly surprising. i mean, we knew the history that whenever a party has had the white house for two consecutive terms for eight years, five times out of six since the end of world war ii, the american people voted for change. the only time they didn't do that was eight years after president reagan, when they elected his vice president, george h.w. bush. there was a tendency there, but there were so many factors that seems like it might be this time. different and while hillary -- it might be different this time. while hillary clinton certainly had incredibly ugly numbers, favorable and unfavorable. so were donald trump's. the desire for change seemed to be so great, a poll where 31% felt the country was headed in the right direction, 62% wrong track.
the interesting thing about that number is, the last time, peter hart and fred yang on the democratic side, and bill on the republican side, and bob teeter had been asking that question almost monthly for the better part of 30 years, and the last time the right direction was more than wrong track was back in january of 2004. 12 years ago. and so, we knew there had been sustained anger and hart had done a series of seven focus groups so far this year or this cycle i should say for the annenberg center in pennsylvania, around the country. the last one was two weeks ago. i think the annenberg school has it on their website. you can watch the focus group, but you could see the anger, the alienation. this was a focus group of late deciders, but even in that focus
group, even listening to these people, it seemed like they desperately wanted change, but that donald trump seemed, you know, listening to these people, seemed to be a little too risky a change, that they wanted change. they wanted something different, but that he might have been a bridge too far, and maybe i read too much into it. there were two quotes in the analysis that hart did that stuck out to me, that i thought told me something. one was a woman named donna saying, "i so much wanted trump. i so much wanted a non-politician, but i don't trust him and i'm afraid of him and i just don't think he knows when to shut up. if he would just say, 'i'm a businessman, i'm not a politician, and i'm going to
make america great again and' stop right there, then i would vote for him." you know, it was like, ok, i can kind of see where she's coming from. another woman, jennifer, in the focus group, was undecided. "i wanted to like trump, but i don't know that i can because it is embarrassing the way he acts. his temper tantrums, he's an embarrassment to our country. i don't embrace clinton, but i would vote for her. it's probably just going to be a vote against trump." that was sort of the theme what we were picking up around the country. people desperately wanted change, but was he an acceptable risk? you know, he was clearly change, but was he too much change, was he too risky a change? so there was reason not to say, well, maybe this is going to come up short. and clearly, there were a lot of voters out there that think that
our political system is not working, or at the very least, it's not working for them, and that think that our economic system isn't working or at least not working for them. and then, you had people that, some people, that they seemed to feel like things are not changing fast enough, and think about, you know, some of the bernie sanders supporters, for example. sanders went out and campaigned awfully hard for clinton and cannot be faulted, and elizabeth warren went out and did a lot, so this is not criticism of them, but that clearly some of the people that they were tapping into were restless and they did not see this as enough change and may not have turned out in quite the numbers expected, but i think, far more, there were people that felt like things were changing too quickly. and whether they were looking at society and culture and all of
the debates on transgender bathrooms, and this and that, that maybe too much was happening too quickly for them. or in the economic system, in terms of whether it's globalization and trade that has put, obviously, some people out of work, but then there are other people that were probably replaced by robot machines and things, but as far as they were concerned, they were replaced by workers abroad, when it really may have been productivity. but clearly, the world for these folks that either chose or didn't have the opportunity to go to college, people that could have made a really, really good income, have a nice living back in the 20th century, but far fewer of them could make that work in the 21st century and, clearly, they were afraid, angry, looking for something else.
clearly, that was sort of building up out there. and then, we saw something and i had a lot of questions before the election, was sort of brexit-related, and i think we could talk about that in a minute. maybe thinking about brexit in a sense of, you know, all the experts in the united kingdom and all the experts around europe were basically telling the people of the u.k. "you don't want to do this, you do not want to leave." and by 52 to 48 the british people voted to leave, and they did it despite the fact that the vast majority of the country's leaders, economic leaders, the experts all were saying "don't do it, don't do it," and they did it anyway.
i think it reflects something there and here that this devaluing of -- this feeling that our leaders let us down and our experts don't know what they are doing, and they see the quagmires in iraq and afghanistan, and they see all of the problems in the middle east, and the rise of terrorism, and they blame leaders and experts for it, and so they say, "well, what the heck. what we have the lose?" that sort of thing. they look at relationships with china and russia and see that if, gosh, if things are going so so badly, how can a real estate developer do any worse than that? we are just sort of seeing this thing where they were willing to sort of defy all warnings that in the past would have, may have scared them off from doing something, and they did it anyway. i confess that looking at and watching focus groups and
looking at polling data of all the problems that secretary clinton had in terms of trust issues and being perceived as evasive and all of that, it really looked, i mean, it looked like donald trump's past and things coming back up as well as just behavior, i mean, think about, we could see a change in polling data after the first debate. or if you want to lump in first debate, the billy bush tapes, where it looked like that made a real difference, that that was sort of a seminal point in the campaign. that clearly, it either was not, or it got undone by subsequent events, and i do not know what
the effect of all the comey back-and-forth did, but i suspect it probably sort of kept that alive, pushed it back to the front of people's mind, reinforced doubts or re- reminded them of things they didn't like about secretary clinton. all of these things. we also saw a sign of things happening in, you know, just sort of think about how debate discourse in this country has changed over the last 20 or 30 years, and whether it's cable news, talk radio, the web, social media, but we have gone from a place that i guess in retrospect seems like it was moderately polite to just bareknuckle brawling, and i highly recommend, last sunday night, how many of you saw "60 minutes?" fair number. you can go on the "60 minutes" website. frank once did a focus group, that was -- and i have watched a lot of them, and i remember at
the time being a little suspicious because it was like, i have seen lots of focus groups where they had some people that seemed kind of angry or pretty suspicious because it was like, angry, but i have never seen one where it's all of them were. and i was a little suspicious that, you know, maybe there had been some aggressive recruiting of people -- [laughter] mr. cook: let's call up 300 or 400 people in the area and pick out the 25 most ticked-off people that you find, and let's put them in a room with some network cameras and see what happens, but i have to tell you, it was compelling television. the wasn't sure it was a straight up, but in retrospect, you know, i sure can't say it was fixed, but it really gave you a sense of how debates and people interactions had changed.
how pointed things had become. and so, we come back to this choice that people were having, and there was one set of focus groups that were done with walmart moms. and this one woman characterized the race is between quote "between a dishonest washington politician and an unqualified hothead." in a different focus group, one in charlotte, peter hart said a man said that it had come down to quote "vote for me because i'm less of a sleazeball." i mean, that's how voters were seeing this choice. i mean, wow. the fact that we could see this in the exit polls, we had, for example, and this was out of the 24,000, as of about 2:30 this
morning, when i printed out the crosstabs, it was about 24,000 interviews. president obama's approval rating of voters yesterday was 53 approve, 45 disapprove, and normally, if you look at that, you would say "well, ok, the party of the sitting president would have a fair chance of holding on and actually did win the popular vote," but looking at the favorable/unfavorables of just the two candidates where hillary clinton had a 44 favorable, 54 unfavorable, so -10, but trump's was 38 favorable, 60 unfavorable and that was the one that won. wow, wow. [laughter] mr. cook: wow. like i said, we will be unpacking this for a really, really, really long time. in an analysis, by the man who does the abc/washington post poll, sent out an analysis this morning and one line that kind
of hit me was a "revolution against politics shook the country tuesday, with working-class whites venting their economic and cultural frustration by lifting insurgent candidate donald trump to the presidency," and where this was, we heard a whole lot about ok, it was noncollege whites over here, against whites that were college graduates over here, and minority voters over here and that is a way, and i will go through some of these numbers in a second, that is one way of looking at it, but part of it was this urban versus of small-town rural, and one of the first signs that things were starting to go in an unexpected direction last night was david wasserman, our house editor, and
he was across the room. we were in the decision desk room at nbc, and he comes over and whispers in my ear, something to the effect of, "you won't believe the numbers we are seeing in some of these states and in some of the rural counties where they were getting turnout levels in places that were just absolutely unprecedented in these rural small-town settings." which raised the question of, clearly, i mean, we knew about the noncollege whites versus college, and we kind of knew that part. i know, i mean, i was personally aware of sort of this cultural divide between small-town rural america, and i might say middle america geographically compared
to the coasts on each side. but it was much, much, much, much hotter than we expected, and so, there is this, kind of the city people or people from the east coast, west coast telling us how we ought to live our lives and really just sort of a rebellion there as well. our colleague from atlantic media national journal from atlantic magazine, ron brownstein, has a great turn that we have seen this inversion, this political inversion. if you think back to the franklin roosevelt new deal coalition, one essential element of it was basically blue-collar whites, working-class whites, central part of the new deal coalition. they have either left, or i guess you could say the democratic party had left them
or driven them away or however you want to characterize it, to the point where trump won non-college-educated whites by a 39-point margin. here's a frame of reference. reagan won them by a 32-point margin, so seven points more, greater than what ronald reagan got, and reagan won a 10-point landslide and this was an election where trump actually, you know, seems to have lost the popular vote by, you know, a fraction of a percent, but certainly, it was not anything like the 10-point blowout -- 10-point landslide like ronald reagan achieved over jimmy carter. um, let me just run through just some of the exit poll data that just jumped out at me as particularly important. those voters under 45, they were 44% of the electorate and clinton won them by 12 points, 52 to 40.
but those 45 and older, that was 56% of the electorate, and we knew that people, particularly 65 and older, turnout at a higher level. but trump won them by nine points, 53 to 44. gender, women made up 52% of the electorate and clinton won by 12, according to the exit poll and men made up 48% of the electorate, and trump won them by 12 points. seems to me, given that women are usually 52%-53% of the electorate, you know, my louisiana public school arithmetic suggests that she was supposed to, you know, she should have won this given that, but go figure. then, let's look at race. back in 1992, when bill clinton beat president george h.w. bush, 87% of the electorate was white and in 2012, it dropped 15 points to 72%. this electorate was 70%, and the
thing is, there were some folks that were saying this could drop down to 59% to 68%, something like that. it ended up being 70%, but of the whites that voted, they voted for trump by a 21-point margin, 58% to 37%, while the 30% that were nonwhite voted for clinton by a 53 point margin, 74% to 21%. then you look at the race, education, gender split. they were kind of interesting. white female college graduates, 20% of the electorate, clinton won them by six points, 51% to 45%. white female noncollege graduates, 17% of the electorate, but trump won them by 28 points. so six points up for clinton
among college graduates, white women, and trump by 28 among the noncollege. wow, what a difference. white male college graduates, trump won by 15 points, white male noncollege graduates, trump won by 49 points. 72% to 23%. nonwhites, 29%. clinton won by 29 points. wait, that doesn't make sense. 29.74, 21. i was doing the subtraction on the train without a calculator and no sleep. [laughter] mr. cook: anyway, party, clinton won democrats by 80 points. um, by an 80-point margin. it was 89% to 9%. what's interesting is president obama had 91% of the democratic vote in 2012. now, mitt romney won 92% of the
republican vote in 2012. trump got 90, 90 seven, so an 83-point margin. then, independents, romney won independents by five, trump won independents by six. there are more democrats than republicans. usually, you are looking at a five or six point spread. at least in the exit polls, it is looking more like a four-point spread, suggesting again, some turnout things that may have than a little surprising. here's the one less thing on the exit polls that i felt was kind of interesting. 13% of the voters yesterday have served in the military.
13%. they voted for donald trump by a 27 point margin, 61% to 34%. and of the 87% that had never served in the military, they went for clinton by five points, 50% to 45%. interesting. a couple of last things, made their mind up before last month, clinton won them -- that's 73% of the electorate, and clinton won them by five points, 51-46. but people that made their mind up before last month -- i'm sorry, the 73% was before the last month. the people who made up their mind in the last month was 26% of the electorate, and trump won them by 10 points, 49-39. you just sort of wonder, is that where, you know, did all the comey stuff -- we don't know, we will never know. you know, but it is a plausible theory. some of the little quirky things, like, one of the
questions they asked is, should the next president -- and they gave three options -- continue barack obama's policies? a second option, change to more conservative policies? and the third was change to more liberal policies? 28% said continue obama's policies, and clinton won them 91-5. 48% said change to more conservative policies, not surprising, donald trump won them by 83-13. but 17% said change to more liberal policies than obama had, and trump won 23% of those people, 70-23. so, you know, you sort of look at that and you say, what is going on?
[laughter] mr. cook: i mean, and sort of similar to that, question -- do you think the 2010 health care law, also known as obamacare, went too far? 47% said went too far, and trump got 83% of that vote. "was about right" was 18%, and trump got 10% of that. not surprising. but what about the 30% that thought obamacare do not go far enough? and trump got 18% of those. almost one out of five of the people that thought that obamacare do not go far enough voted for trump. [groans] [laughter] mr. cook: you know, it's times like this that i start to pull out my hair, which thankfully, i have got plenty.
trump got 18% of the vote of people who thought he was unqualified. [laughter] mr. cook: um, so... as i said, we are going to be unpacking this for a really long time. but what is interesting, and i did hear someone, and i cannot remember which network, at around 5:30 this morning talking about this as a wave election. i was thinking, ok, it was surprising things happening, but in a wave election, a party that is benefiting from a wave election does not lose a half-dozen house seats. my definition of a wave election, you know, is when you start picking up two or three dozen seats, you know, something like 37, like republicans got with reagan in 1980. or 52 seats, like republicans got in 1994. that is a wave.
having a net loss of either one or two seats, depending on what happens in new hampshire with kelly ayotte and maggie hassan, losing a seat or two, that's not always. that is not a wave in any direction. this seems trump-specific, but some of the turnout things that i think were driven by trump also kept republicans from losing more seats than we thought. i mean, for me, i kind of thought the over-under was about 13 seats. that's the number of seats that republicans gained in 2014 over what they won back in 2012 in the last presidential election. and, you know, you can argue 13, 15, something like that. six seats, there's lower than we thought. not shocking, but lower than we thought.
and you at one point that i knew -- i knew at one point, i don't remember what our last range was, but at some point in the last week or two, we had a wide five to 20. it would have fit. the thing is, losing one or two seats, that's not -- so something, as i said, we are going to be unpacking this for a really long time. ok, let me talk for like, five minutes. how much time do we have? 10 minutes. oh, get to talk for 10 minutes. what does this mean, and where are we going? this is just really uncharted territory. i mean, let's start off with the house. how does this affect paul ryan? how does this affect -- well, first of all, what is paul ryan thinking these days? [laughter] mr. cook: does he want the job? if he wants it, is he allowed to keep it?
will house republicans, the freedom caucus, tea party folks feel emboldened by all this and say, "you know, let's get rid of ryan and get one of us in there," or do they say, "we need somebody who's going to be a negotiator, someone who's going to run interference between us and president trump since he is kind of new to town." [laughter] mr. cook: and the legislative process, the governing process, this kind of stuff. i mean, we don't know. you know, i think obviously mitch mcconnell was in a different situation, because he is not in any jeopardy, and he certainly played things a little cagier than ryan did.
so, he does not have that vulnerability. but i think, you know, some of us were talking last night about, you know, what's going to happen? you are going to have trump here, and you know, are you going to have paul ryan here, and mitch mcconnell here, and mike pence has, you know, been around. do they kind of surround trump and kind of try to move him in certain directions, and constructive ways? or does trump just start completely freelancing? how does all this work? we don't know. i mean, we have been so thinking about, well, ok, if republicans lose their majority in the senate, and they get the margin in the house cut in half, how
many times could ryan violate the hastert rule without being kicked out? but that does not seem relevant anymore. we are just at a really new place here, and, you know, at this point, from this point forward, nobody is an expert. we are all novices in this situation, because nobody has ever seen anything quite like this before. and what happens in the democratic party? i mean, there had been an argument made when it appeared hillary clinton was going to win, i heard people argue that she actually would have been better off with 49 democrats in the senate than 51, that she would have as much or more
problems on her left as on the right. and that there were already about 12 or 13 really, really, really, really liberal democrats in the senate, and it looks like it would probably get up to 15, and that would be it a real problem for her. that maybe she could tell them to chill out a little if they did not have a majority in the senate. so, there was that whole discussion going on, which obviously is not relevant right now, but where does the democratic party go? and i have to tell you, i have been saying this for a couple of months, were thinking this for a couple of months, that to me if you look at the democratic party now, i would argue that the center of gravity and the party nationally is closer to the bernie sanders and elizabeth warren than it is to hillary clinton or joe biden. and that while everybody was fixating on how ideological and outsider and angry at all the
stuff that was going on on the republican side, but i have always thought that whenever you see some problem in one party, take a gander over at the other side and look, because you will see either the potential of or the reality of that same problem over there, in the democrats. whether it is the outsider alienated, some of the stuff bernie sanders and elizabeth warren saying the democratic party is owned and operated by wall street and the big banks. which is obviously news to wall street and the big banks because they were clearly not getting a lot of the value for their ownership. [laughter] mr. cook: but we were seeing -- so, where does the democratic party go over the next few years? and i think one thing, a couple thought just about how things changed, and then we will open
it up for questions and comments and accusations. but i had been -- and again, i'm trying to sort of mentally make the turn from what we thought was going to happen to what obviously happened, but in the context of clinton winning, i was thinking, well, a couple of things may be happening. number one, she would likely have had a better working relationship, at least with the senate, than president obama did because, you know, he always, i would not say they had to break his arms to sit down with members of congress, including those in his own party, but, you know, they probably did have to shove him around a little bit to get him to do that, and that generally that does not work so well. i would venture to guess that the last time a president had as difficult a relationship with
his own party on capitol hill was jimmy carter, maybe, back in the late 1970's. so, we thought that. i do think, though, that chuck schumer, i think chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell, first of all, think of mcconnell and harry reid. it was like watching two scorpions in a bottle. [laughter] mr. cook: terms like loathing and despising really understate the relationship. [laughter] mr. cook: and when, you know, the impression i have is that schumer will have had a far, far better relationship both with mitch mcconnell and other republican senators than harry reid had because it had gotten poisonous. that's something that will be different.
but all in all, i know that probably a couple of you are lobbyists. wow. i do not think you will be getting your budgets cut until -- in the next year. i think that maybe if this town is driven by fear, uncertainty, and change, we have all three food groups coming up in the next two years. [laughter] mr. cook: and so, let me just close on that. but i will tell you, just sitting around, talking with pollsters and other folks around nbc last night, you have 140 years of experience there and nobody had ever seen anything like this. when i stop, and there is a microphone here, and one over here, and they ask that you
identify yourself. ok, here we go. >> hi. in the states of pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin, is that a shift for just this election or a trend that you see going forward? mr. cook: i think it's a trend. i really do. because, and i think it is that michigan may be -- well, um, democrats had been banking so much on this rise of latino vote, asian-americans, the rising latino vote, the states with booming numbers of young, highly educated people that were moving towards the democratic party, but the thing about it is that's not happening evenly across all 50 states. and there are some that that has
happened a lot, and as a result, she did fine in virginia, she did fine, clinton did fine in colorado, but in the states where it skews somewhat less minority and a little less on the educational side, a little more on the rural side, the democrats have been so excited about the glass being half full that they were ignoring that the glass was half empty. that they were losing ground with certain groups. they have been so excited about the groups that they have been gaining with. and i would say, just as we all have spent a lot of time talking about the 2013 republican autopsy and how republicans needed to do better with minority voters and younger voters, yada yada, that maybe democrats should have done a study like, ok, we won, but there are some warning signs out there.
there are signs where democrats are underperforming, and they are troubling. and i think that democrats would be very well advised to maybe do their own autopsy this time and take a look at what happened, and what some trends are that they ought to be worried about. because, i mean, clearly the country is changing, and it is changing a lot, and it is changing in a way that generally benefits democrats, but it is not changing as fast as they think it is. and it is exposing some real -- you know, i guess for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. it is opening up real problem areas for them in other areas that they have to figure out a way to square.
>> i wanted to ask you, is some of this trump's new approach to technology? did the clinton campaign fight the old election of obama, data-driven, turnout operation, were they fighting the old war, and is he in the new twitterland that is direct communication and more nibble, allocation of resources. we all know how much less he spent on his campaign. or was it just the cult of personality? mr. cook: i am trying to think. my colleague amy walter wrote a piece this morning. she was ambitious and wrote something. i was too brain-addled. what was that phrase she used? she quoted glen bolger from public opinion strategies talking about 2004, that a good field can't make up for bad messaging, i think. and the thing about it is, i
think the power of trump's messages trumped -- the thing is, clearly the clinton campaign, clearly some things goofed up. i mean, first of all, the fact that they did not send her into wisconsin, that minnesota and wisconsin were left sort of exposed, and even though she did carry minnesota, it was not by much. clearly something went wrong somewhere along the way, and i'm sure we will read a lot about it. no, i don't think that trump has found some new way. i think he just had, in retrospect, a very powerful message that resonated with certain types of voters really well. the right message, the right year. and i think it was that. i mean, i would, my guess is, if
i were a republican consultant, i would not tell future republican presidential candidates, "don't worry about field, do it the way trump did." i mean, this is like, what's in those car commercials, professional drivers on a closed course. kids, don't try this at home. [laughter] mr. cook: just because it works for him does not mean it will work for you. you know, and the thing is, and i remember, and i'm not saying that this is the same, but the romney folks, romney had some pretty awfully bright people working for him, and they had done a lot on analytics, and it was a pretty sophisticated campaign. they thought they were pretty good. they felt good going in, but thought they were measuring up reasonably well to the obama operation. and as it turned out, it was not -- or did not seem to be -- nearly as sophisticated as the obama operation. but i think romney did not have
that powerful message to make up for whatever gap in the technology level that was there. so, no, i don't think this is something new, but i think it is more the power of trump's message. i will stick with that until we learn more, which i'm sure we will all read lots more. >> rachelle darnay. what impact does this election have on the role of the media in politics? because it seems like all of the, what i would call, the legitimate media, the fact checking and document of all information, had no impact whatsoever, and instead what we got was the entertainment side of media, and there does not seem to be a real political
filter anymore. so, what is in the future for media's role in politics? mr. cook: that's a great question. part of it is, particularly with younger voters, i don't want to lay it all off on them, that the distinction between traditional journalism and opinion, that wall has broken down. and that they do not, whether you go on the internet, some of those walls that used to be there, that you knew what was an editorial, what was an op-ed piece, and what was a news piece, it's murkier. and i have to also add though, that the media -- how much trouble do i want to get in? [laughter] mr. cook: no, you, kevin.
i think there's going to have to be a lot of soul-searching within the media on this. on the one hand, i think with a lot of not just one, but a lot of cable networks, up until this year, if you wanted to watch a whole speech from a politician, you had to go to our friends at c-span, and that's where you went, and the idea of other cable networks, national ones basically doing entire speeches, that had never really happened with any kind of frequency before, and they started doing it very aggressively with trump, and eventually, they would throw in some clinton and bernie sanders. which i think gave, you know, we saw figures, a couple billion dollars worth of coverage, not that donald trump had name
recognition problems before, but in terms of allowing him to give his message, unfiltered directly to voters, mainlining it to them in a way that was unprecedented. and then, we kind of segue to a place where, the networks realized, every time we put this guy on, our ratings would go sky high, which helps my bonus. i mean, you know, obviously, and that wall between profit-making and journalism got a little more permeable. and to be honest, i think in a lot of the early debates, and in the, and in interviews, they would ask the obligatory
question about, "when are you going to release your income tax returns?" and he would say, "oh, after the audit is gone," and there may or may not be one follow-up, but in terms of somebody grilling him and sort of really going after him, they did not do that. and i don't want to impugn anybody's motives, but you kind of wonder whether, "wow, if i give him a hard time, maybe he will not come back on, and we will take a little bit of a ratings hit." if you want an example -- remember the interview that chris matthews did with trump on where he asked, "what would you do --" chris was like a dog with a bone. he just kept going after trump in a very aggressive way. and i know chris is not from the traditional journalistic background, but the thing is,
chris went after him far more aggressively than i saw any other journalisst do in terms of that kind of thing. you did not see much of that. but then, we went into the last six weeks or so. and i have to say, i think some newspapers that i love and respect enormously, they kind of went a little far the other way and got really, really aggressive. i mean, when you call -- you know, it's one thing to say, "mr. trump said this. however, the record shows this and this and this." that's the way to teach you in journalism school. but the thing is, but to call something a lie in a news story, wow. you know, i think i would have gotten an "f" in high school journalism if i had tried that. that's a new place.
and it was, and even though i have no sympathy for donald trump, but i tell you what, i got really uncomfortable watching the finest newspapers in the country really -- it was like watching a badly-refereed basketball game where you are getting a lot of makeup calls at the end. and, you know, you have watched games, you have seen these makeup calls. you kind of go, "wow," you kind of wince. quite frankly, i'm not sure that print journalism had a lot to make up for. you know, to me, it was more on the television side where some of the transgressions early on had been. so, you know, i think all political analysts and pollsters and operatives, i mean, there's a lot of that -- of us going to be looking back at how we did
things. but quite frankly, i think journalism, i mean, when we sort of assumed that trump was going to lose, i wondered if he would get the genie back in the bottle. when we sort of assumed that trump was going to lose, i wondered if he would get the genie back in the bottle, if any kind of journalism, if you did this to donald trump, would you be able to get your standards back up, down the road, for somebody else? maybe you should have just left all the standards where they were. i think that there are a lot of us that have a lot to be thinking about.
naval gazing, not that i have seen my navel in a long time. [laughter] charlie: any questions? >> i'm going to have you prognosticate more about 2018. what kind of candidate would you have against sherrod brown in 2018? how conservative would candidates be that cruz could use in 2018? charlie: we certainly are making the turn.
in my mind, you had all the circumstances that were working against republicans this time. we know that in presidential election years, the turnout is big and broad and relatively diverse and looks less like the country, and it midterms the turnout is 40% lower, older, whiter, more conservative, more republican. republicans had seven senate seats up in states that president obama carried. there were no democrats in states that mitt romney carried, but for 2018, it was like everything was on the other foot. ok, it's a bit term election, so -- midterm election, so it favors republicans. we thought that it was going to be a midterm election with a democratic president. using the house as a yardstick,
the party has gained seats in precisely three midterm elections in the last century and that there were 25 democratic seats up and only eight republican seats up in 2018. all the factors working against republicans this year would be working against republicans -- against democrats in 2018. one now, it is topsy-turvy. -- well now, it is topsy-turvy. part of your question would be, is this a group of people, party woulds in ohio who
commission a lot of polling and on their various potential candidates and take a boat -- take a boat and decide who would be the optimal candidate? that is not the way it works anymore. instead, my guess is you will have quite a few republicans .unning for that seat i don't know up the top of my head who would be the optimal person. who was the supreme court
justice who said i cannot define pornography, but i know it if i see it? you think you know who would be a good challenger. sometimes that does not work. for example, democrats were really excited when they recruited patrick murphy to run for senate down in florida. republicans were really, really worried. then they did their research. they said, that is not enough to work with, so they dismantled the guy. it is a good question, we do not know yet. >> you provided a lot of interesting exit polling data, and obviously it tracks differently with what we saw the for the pre-election polling. hence the results. can you give us a little explanation for why the pre-election polling was so off, particularly from the campaign standpoint? mr. cook: let's look at it two ways. first, let's do national. then, take the state park. national, what we say the average was going in? clinton by 3, 4?
and it ended up being clinton by a half, or a third of a point. something like that. that is how the west coast votes are. it is off but not orders of magnitude off. the fact is that polling, i think the best pollsters in the business, doing the best work they possibly can, they are not as good as their predecessors were 30 or 40 years ago. while a lot of people think that is about cell phones, it is not. the good pollsters use live interviews and call cell phones. the problem is caller id. the problem is, telemarketers burned people out. if my mom or dad got a call 30
years ago, they would be flattered that somebody asked their opinion about politics. now, it is, who is interrupting my dinner? you check the caller id and you don't know who that is, you do not answer. response rates used to be almost 40% of all calls that went out, they could get completions, and now, it is down to about 9%. getting a representative sample is really, really hard. even the best pollsters doing their best work, it is not as reliable as it used to be. i do not see that as as much of a failure. on some of the states where you had state polling -- first of all, not a lot had state polling going on.
anybody here from minnesota? did you see any? i do not remember seeing a whole lot of pulled out in minnesota. -- polls out of minnesota. you did not think there were any? i could not remember any. michigan had a few, it was not exactly over-polled. there were some states where we had polls coming out two to three times a week. some places were not polled well. and the quality of polling in individual states varies a lot. to me, where the polling was off the most was in some of the states. where we thought the fight would be in the fight ended up being -- and where the fight ended up being were two different places. what the campaigns may have been seeing, i don't know. that is a question you have to ask pollsters for each side, give them some sodium penethol
and see what they say. a poll that had clinton up by 3% or 4% and she won by less than 1%? that is troubling. to me, we knew that the blue-collar, non-college-educated white, we knew that was there. to me, it was the small-town rural, to me that is the group i suspect may have been real underrepresented. one of the things that happens, when you do focus groups, there are cities that have really good focus group facilities, where they all go to columbus, ohio or charlotte where there are good facilities. but they do not go 20 miles, 30 miles, 40 miles south.
they do not go out there. maybe tapping into that small-town, rural thing, that is a suspicion that i have, where we missed tapping into some of that anger. you can see it, even in upstate new york. upstate new york, that might be a completely different state than the city and the suburbs. >> a quick follow-up to that. is your assumption that the clinton campaign, they probably modeled that the vote would be similar to the obama vote and it blew her out of the water. is that your take? mr. cook: it sure looks like it. my transom is open if anyone wants to wikileaks a bunch of
internal clinton documents. i am kidding. that's not even funny. [laughter] mr. cook: inquiring minds would like to know, what did they see, and when did they see it? i'm not inclined to throw a lots of rocks at the technical people in that campaign, because some of the groups i have dealt with, they are some really bright, talented people who were, a lot of them were on the obama campaign in 2008 and 2012 and were pretty damn good then. i do not think that they woke up in competent one day. i think there were new and different things. i think that having some of the challenges that secretary clinton had, image challenges.
let's face it, where the democratic party is going. president obama, nancy pelosi, that image of where the democrat ic party is, it is a happening place for certain kinds of voters. but it is on a different planet than with the voters in south arkansas, where my parents grew up, for example. i don't know, good question. nice hotels, though. i like the regency. anybody else before i go? >> jeff brown with pew charitable trusts. i am curious as to the impact of the hispanic/latino turnout. can you talk a little in general about what trends the you see, what happened in florida and nevada, maybe in the future of arizona and texas. or was this a story that was
more hyped than anything? i want to see with the benefit of sleep a lot more data. in some areas, the latino vote was robust and all that. i was hearing a bit of the cuban may have and forth complicated things a little bit. i was talking to a political scientist that does some stuff with the democratic party and was asking him, when will texas go purple? when might it go purple? you know what i was told is,
2020 earliest, 2024 may be more plausible. this person made a comparison with california. , you have this very large growing latino population that tends to be more in urban areas. and you have really, really well-financed public employee than happy were more to spend a heck of a lot of money on voter registration mobilization come all that. while in texas, the latino vote and ah more spread out lot of it is more rural, have-town, and you don't that financial infrastructure that california democrats had in texas. as a result, it was going to be
on a completely different directory then that than california was. to expect them all to behave like california -- where california, ever since. and proposition 187 -- rick perry tried to take a fairly moderate position on immigration and romney just killed him with it. where texas republicans had not
behaved in the way pete wilson had back in california back in the 1980's. i think there will be a lot of things written -- i would expect pew charitable trust to write a lot about it. i will be reading it carefully. it is to sin. we have to wait until all the votes are in that it is too soon -- it is too soon. we have to wait until all the votes are in. anybody else? >> [indiscernible]
mr. cook: never take the last question. they are good questions. [laughter] cook: what i wonder, where the country is going on social and cultural issues, where the republican party needs to be in the future, i don't think this will have done a lot of good advancing the cause that the republican party needs to make changes in order to go after younger voters in the future. a lesson that needed to be learned, i think, probably did not get learned this year. it kicked it down the sidewalk a and allows a
demographic problem for the republican party on cultural ratherto just get worse than them start to figure out under 40rs under 50, look at a lot of these cultural thans very differently where the historic republican base has. if i were a moderate republican hoping the party would change its direction on cultural issues , i would be really depressed today. while the republican party won the presidency, that fight cap prolonged. that's got prolonged. your guess is as good as mine. we will all fasten our seatbelts and get ready for a wild ride.
i don't even think he knows what he's going to do or who is going to hire to help determine whether going to do. that's what they are going to do. your membership in national journal will help you understand that. i've already signed my renewal with kevin. thank you all very much for coming out. thank you all. [applause] >> thank you for sharing your thoughts with us today. a couple of things to mention before leaving, you all will receive an e-mail from us that will have a survey. we take feedback very seriously at national journal. we would love to hear what you thought.
there is a breakdown on a lot of the polling and a lot of the results test many of you will beginning presentations here soon. we are hopeful to be helpful there. we look forward to serving you in 100 days -- in the next 100 days. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> we will have more election
analysis later today on c-span live at noon eastern come with the results mean for the constitution, foreign policy, the economy and legal system. that starts in 40 minutes at noon eastern here on c-span. today,up live at 6:45 pundits, pollsters and journalists will talk about lessons learned from tuesday's results. donald trump is at the white house for his scheduled meeting with president obama. mr. trump scheduled to meet separately with paul ryan today and mitch mcconnell. congressional republicans praising for major losses on election day are drafting an ambitious agenda that will seek to torpedo president obama's major accomplishments. the public and lawmakers were talking about reaching out to amocrats to put together package to repeal the portable care act and replace it with other reforms.
smaller numbers for both the --house and senate. who has the advantage, the upper hand? guest: certainly republicans have the surprising amount of power. on election night, a lot of republicans were bracing for big losses, especially the white house and probably the senate and a number of house. the senate obviously stays in republican's hands. next year could be a big policymaking year because republicans have all three. thie majority of republican senators voting for it. host: let's talk about speaker ryan spent time campaigning spending money for those members think his distance from donald trump. yesterday was a different look at paul ryan trying to bridge that divide. donald trump is set to meet with the house speaker today. how big of a divide is there? guest: it is less of a divide the before the election. before the election, paul ryan and donald trump as well as mitch mcconnell and donald trump, there was never any joint press conference. it is highly unusual. it is because the controversial
things will trump had. and ryan and mcconnell did not know how to handle it. it was a very awkward position for them to be in. it ended up with a good ending for the gop. remember, before the election, staff trump suggest it to suggested that paul ryan would be in a different position because he was upset at ryan and they had been feuding. now that donald trump has this historic win, they will bury the hatchet. i don't think anyone could get to 218 votes other than paul ryan. paul ryan did talk to trump and i do think they will bury the hatchet. and paulnd and not -- ryan will be the speaker in the house in congress. host: we had been asking the priorities for the trump presidency. the first meeting with donald
trump and president obama. in his last days, donald trump has been talking about investing in infrastructure. go back to the 2009 infrastructure bill, $830 billion was approved, republicans spent a great deal of time criticizing the effectiveness and amount of money spent. it is like the that a big chunk the money will be spent on infrastructure. how does donald trump convince them on spending that money? onst: no matter who won election night, hillary clinton or donald trump talk about infrastructure. this'll be a part of trump's first 100 days. suggested she is ready to deal of transportation. it depends on how they do it. there could be tax provisions in their. those are always controversial. before the stimulus and 2009,
transportation was a bipartisan issue. agreedcans and democrats and were able to reauthorize the highway bill pretty regularly. really --stimulus, it there is no doubt about it, the freedom can't and the conservative movement are not want a big, bloated transportation bill moving through congress. enoughink there is republicans and democrats to get something done in the first 100 days. guest.ob cue sac is our we look forward to your calls. send us a tweet. seems like with the election of donald trump, a whole lot less trauma in the lame-duck. guest: i think this lame-duck,
there will not be a lot of business getting done. the first priority is funding the government. they must do that by december 9. they have talked about maybe doing some appropriation packages. it will be very difficult to do. conservatives don't want a lot done now. they want to have more power next year. the president will be pushing for his agenda and that includes the tpp. that is highly unlike to move in the lame-duck and something that hillary clinton and donald trump opposed vigorously. it will be a impossible to get that done in the lame-duck. host: the house returning on monday with live coverage of us and coming on tuesday on c-span2. let's go to our independent line in here from connecticut. here is steven. caller: thank you for taking my
call, c-span. congratulations president-elect donald trump. of thingsa couple that president-elect donald trump promised in the debates that i want to see if he can do. one is childcare. childcare in new england is prohibitively expensive. that is so important that we get childcare for us up here. another one is carried interest tax reform. that is something that could help pay for child care. ofhe can get some form , iried interest, tax reform think that would be a tremendous thing. he made his bones as a builder. those issues -- childcare and tax reform. guest: childcare was more
hillary clinton's and nancy pelosi's radar the donald trump. that is not going to be the top of donald trump's agenda for now. as for his carried interest, said that he is going to after wall street. he has also criticized drug companies for drug prices and gone after the hmo industry. on tax reform and carried interest, he is for that. some onwhat he in capitol hill disagree on. think the chances of the tax reform bill, which is the hope. the last one was done in 1986.
that was not a top priority for president obama through his two terms. it is a top priority for donald trump. he says the tax system is unfair, but it is hard to get it done. there will be a lot of talk of it. host: headline in usa today says -- what do you see as the role of former congressman, now governor, now vice president-elect mike pence? guest: one of the best things donald trump did was mike pence. he mobilized the conservative movement and is a fiscal and social conservative. the base loves mike pence. he served in the house for a number of years. and he took on president bush on medicare and drug legislation. he is great relationships with paul ryan and mitch mcconnell.
he will play a huge role in getting the details. donald trump is not a big detail guy. mike pence can be the big detail guy on capitol hill. mike pence has great relationships. he is very media savvy. president-elect trump is a little short on the details, but we will get a sense of those as a budget is developed. what does that mean for potential trump appointees? guest: the transition is number one. they have to decide who will fill these positions. there is chatter on who will help his cabinet. , and will trythat to move quickly and get them approved in january, then you've got to come up with a budget. that first budget is the most closely scrutinized document in
-- since the last president's first year. people will be looking, what are the details? if the proposal to build a wall in their? what is the cost? you have to have cost of their. he says mexico will pay for it. there is a lot of work to be done for now and inauguration. host: good morning to charles on the republican line. caller: yes, good morning. i'm a black republican. i have said that many times. i'm a black man in america. what donald trump is really doing is more than any white candidate i have ever seen done. he saying he is doing things for the inner cities and black people. subject i want to hear. in two years, we have the midterm election. republicanss, most
were lining up in 2020. donald trump will be the incumbent. those republicans have an idea about 2010 -- 2020. the third thing i want to talk is whos what people say black people vote for, and who do black people like? you have all these people on television, black individuals say black people want this and that. black people want the same thing donald trump is talking about. it reminds me of the 1960's. it is very sad to say this. i am not a muslim. i am a christian. in matthew starts with jesus christ. something that reverberated with me.
asked malcolm x, he says we are tired of singers, dancers, clowns, and people who consider themselves the leaders of black people. when you really look at it, and i think about who is one of the best black leaders? i am so sick and tired of black individuals running around calling themselves -- line mentioned fill jackson. and mix fan. overall, donald trump did not do well with minority voters, however, early data just, and everybody was wrong, nobody thought trump would run. early data suggest that hillary
clinton won the black vote. but african-american voters did whenome out nearly as president obama ran in 2008 and 2012. mccain got more votes than from. clinton did not have the turnout that they expected. that will be the obstacle for donald trump is uniting the country. a lot of minorities did not vote for him and he has to worry about that in the two-year midterm. george w. bush and barack obama, when they got elected, their teens worked hard behind the scenes to avoid a primary challenge. that is what trump has to do in 2020. both bush and obama avoided a primary challenge. cusack is our guest.
we welcome your tweets and calls. says, here is some of what he is hoping for a president. [video clip] >> after a tough campaign were people believe they were pitching so hard for one side, the time is to heal and unify. the health care is not a popular law. it is collapsing under its own weight. to your question about repealing obamacare, the senate majority has demonstrated that we are able to pass legislation and put on the president's desk. the problem is president obama be towed it -- vetoed it. with unified government, we can problems. it is not just the health care law, we have shown the ability to do it. there are so many more things i
am excited about. think about the laid-off coworkers and the farmers and wisconsin teeing harassed by the epa? think about the ranchers in the west with the laid-off timber workers. there is relief coming. this is good for our country. this means he could lift the oppressive weight of the regulatory state and restore the constitution. think about the conservative constitutional judges that will be nominated? this is very exciting. host: saying there is relief coming. guest: obama care is at the top of the agenda to repeal it and they can do it with the majority of votes in the senate. they have to keep their guys in line. think about obamacare, is survived major challenges. two supreme court challenges, and election were mitt romney vowed to eradicate it.
republicans appear to have the votes. but they have to replace it, and replacing it is very difficult. the have not been able to coalesce behind one proposal scored by the budget office. repealing it become a replacing it, very difficult. -- would youtrump think donald trump will get the most push back in congress? guest: one of the things that has not been on the agenda for either candidate is cutting government spending. that is something big for the conservative movement and was big on the agenda and 2010 -- in 2010. got shellacked in 2010. not016, donald trump is that he would reach the age for social security and medicare. those are things that those on the hill believe in.
medicare is heading for bankruptcy before social security. the growth of government and the debt is something that conservatives want trump to really take seriously and to focus a lot more on. host: here is warsaw, new york. independent line. caller: good morning, c-span. i am so behind in my sleep because i stayed up all night long tuesday night. i am so excited about this whole thing. when you are in new york, you have to stay up all night long plane because we are hiding the electoral college -- the are fighting the electoral college. i was praying, and praying, and frame. i am not as generous as donald trump and giuliani. , and in a lottive of people in this country, too, we are so disgusted with
washington d.c.. donald promised us he would clean up the swamp. for all of the republicans, i would start with paul ryan and with mitch mcconnell and with lindsey graham and john mccain. and i would make their life so damn miscible that they would quit their jobs and go home -- miserable that they would quit their jobs and go home. they are not or america but for their paychecks. they are a bunch of turncoats and i have no use for any of them. like i said, my candidate originally was ben carson. i hope the donald gives him a very important job in his cabinet. some of the ones that stood by him. donald is going to need a lot of help. he is not going to get any real help from those worthless
republicans. they are worse than the democrats are in host. host: hope you get some sleep. in 2008, after the supreme court decision was i know. clinton called for the end of the electoral college and ended up winning the popular vote. couple of things, during the swamp is a race that nancy pelosi used in 2006 that helped them win the house majority. donald trump is now using the term during the swamp. a ban on lobbyist. ben carson will have a very prominent role. he is a top advisor for donald trump. be in the cabinet, maybe, because he is a doctor.
withr as the anger republicans, that will continue, but if paul ryan is working with trump, they will be able to get some legislation passed and that might help approval ratings. but democrats -- the biggest target, obamacare, they will fight very very hard. host: some of the senators who opposed him -- john mccain, lindsey graham. guest: it puts them in a very difficult position. you think of 2020, most of this town and the pundits were thinking of 2020 of republicans theing thinking about senator who was thinking about a 2020 run thinking trump would lose. that is not going to happen in all likelihood. host: here is pennsylvania. caller: hello? host: good morning. go ahead. that --whats saying
donald trump got elected, if they give him a little time, he will get this country turned around. i was just so happy. i did not want hillary in there. i know he will turn it around they give him a little time. donna -- we will go to donnie on our democrat's line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just recently became a usa citizen before the election. was int of view is -- i a documented immigrant. the process is difficult. country to bee my a rapist or murderer.
i would like americans to look us in a different way. work for a law enforcement family and i am proud for where i am right now. i would like people to not judge color or how we look. give us an opportunity to prove that we can be a great asset to this nation. we would like to contribute to everything. i am so blessed to be an american. glad you could join the conversation this morning, donnie. guest: there is a lot of fear based on donald trump policies and what he said about deportation. republicans know they are for legal immigration. and when there are violations of the law, it hurts people welcome
through the process. in his budget, people will be looking at. there was talk about a ban on muslims, but then changed that to certain countries. these are details that are very important. they will reveal why trump administration would do. in terms of immigration, he could do some of the executive orders president obama has issued. guest: that's what he has promised to do. he has a long list of what he wants to do on day one. that is one of them, he would please send a lot of these -- he would resend a lot of these executive orders. his supporters give him the way. -- give him leave way. they give him the lee way.
a give him that, but he cannot abandon his promises. host: he comes into this with the supreme court being at justices. i want to play the, some mitch mcconnell on what he is thinking and then get you -- and get your reaction. [video clip] >> we all agree that this is a stunning election. clearly, an indication that the american people would like to try something new. i know the speaker shares my view that we would like to give the country got into a different direction and intend to work with him to change courses. to change the course for america. towill have an opportunity fulfill a supreme court seat. -- a supreme court vacancy. i said it best that the american people decide made this appointment to the supreme court. i thought i was on pretty firm footing.
has been 80 years that he vacancy was created during the middle of an election year. back tod have to go 1988 to find a vacancy during a presidential year and considered by the opposite party. soon early next year. host: what are democrats' options with a republican president appointing his nominee to the court? host: aest: the base really liked lot of things the conservative base did not like about donald trump. when he put out his list of potential supreme court justices, they love it. republicans on capitol hill are in all likelihood going to support that. it is a very controversial pick. democrats can filibuster supreme court nominees.
republicans, unless they change the rules, are going to be 50 votes. they have been able to move prior whether it is justice alito or roberts with the democratic party not supporting bush's nominee. i think that is always a heavy lift to get your supreme court nominee in. that is something that is likely going to happen. host: we go back to calls from florida. david on the republican line. caller: good morning, america. how about that trump? awesome, i love it. theve been saying for years only way this country is going to turn around is it a billionaire comes in with no ties to special interest and gets things done. that is what he is going to do. everybody in the media was wrong about this guy from day one. you guys are a bunch of
backstreet -- ask the drivers sitting back and watch and do his magic. that is all i have to say. host: we will let you tend to your dogs. guest: the media was wrong, pollsters were is wrong that were wrong. -- pollsters were wrong. we interviewed donald trump four times. he is very media savvy. he knows what his message is. i think he had a very good slogan. it was controversial to some but making america great again. hillary clinton was too careful. we tried to sit down with her and she would not sit down with a lot of media outlets. she did not have press conferences for 300 days. in retrospect you can't run and be too careful and get there. you have to go for it. donald trump went for it and now he's the president-elect. host: trump vilified lobbyist
with his win will keep k street busy. another effective victory likely boom foroo for the -- the lobbying district. political upheaval, certainty, heightens interest and concern from the business community about the agenda and will of the pursued by a new administration and congress. mid-1990's, even newt gingrich and bill clinton. they got big things done. they got the balanced budget act done, welfare reform act done. divided government worked in the mid-1990's. it has not worked since then. in 2009 obama had the overwhelming majority, a lot of stuff got done. obamacare, climate change. you had done frank pass -- dodd-frank past.
i think most people agree gridlock is not a good thing. democrats are not going to like to see what is moving through capitol hill next year. host: debbie on the democrats line. caller: i would like to give my point out before you hang up on me. i cannot understand how it 8:00 on tuesday night when i am voting i still believe hillary is going to win and all of a sudden things change. it is not just alabama or wisconsin, it is all over the country. isn't that strange to you? been -- isay this has believe the media, the fbi and certain politicians all put this little plan together. right here after the polls closed they dropped a few extra little numbers. if you look on every state, they won by less than 150,000.
something is very fishy in this country and everyone better be looking because this was stolen. mentioned -- you usak, what does it look like? what the media organizations seven back and saying what committee right the next time? guest: never what is not listening to groupthink. if you look at the polls and at donald trump had a shot going into election night but he had to run the table because these battleground states were very close. virginia,out, like which was a nailbiter that hillary clinton up winning but donald trump was up most of the night because they cap the southern counties first. her up bye was five points. the pollsters -- not every poll
is wrong. most of the polls were off. on and, they were dead actually underestimated barack obama's performance. i do think the media needs to reevaluate itself. you have to look at the passion and enthusiasm was there for trump. it just really was not there for clinton. host: you are the editor in chief of the hill.com, the helm this paper. -- hill newspaper. what is it like looking at the congressional districts? guest: you have to get out there. you have to go. i was in ohio recently. being in ohio i could tell. there is no chance hillary clinton was going to win ohio. i didn't think he would win by double digits, but is the import of having money in your
travel budget see you can go to places, talked to people and get out of the d.c. bubble. in manchester, new hampshire a year ago was the first time i realized the opioid issue was so devastating. we have to start writing about it. in d.c. people at that time were not talking about it. florida.dela in miami, caller: thanks to c-span. i am curious. i keep hearing about this change, we voted for change. i can't understand what that really means. does it mean we get going back to the transition period with bush where the economy was in a hole. the dow jones index was so low. there were so many people without health care and then obamacare came in.
is that really what we need? gridlockeally mean the in the parliament, the house and senate, this is where changes really needed. everything the president put forward came up with grid, and senate anded by the the house. host: we had a couple of calls like that concerned with people with the affordable care act. guest: if you take away benefits from people, you will feel the effect in future elections. that is what republicans have to -- they have to get all their republican brain trust together in figure out a way to replace obamacare, if they are going to repeal it. that will be the rub. people are nervous about losing their benefits. that is why in 2012, if mitt
romney had one, the benefits and not gone into effect. after that, after the 2012 election, john boehner said obamacare is the law of the land and took a lot of heat for it. they knew it was going to be difficult from that point on to eradicate the law. without a doubt a are going -- that is their number one issue. ryan andse speaker leadership in the house has been waving the better way policy issues. and a number of issues they repose for the next administration, the next congress. how much of that becomes part of the trunk proposal? -- trump proposal? guest: donald trump is not a details person. his administration will flesh out details in the budget, but paul ryan is a policy wonk. he likes to get into the details. that could be a nice, women read
20 of ryan and trump and mcconnell. they do disagree on the tpp trade deal. there is no way trump will give him the green light. ryan have to back off on that and other major issues that trump once. -- wants. he is the one that just got elected and they are certainly going to like it a lot more today have a friend in the white house now and not an enemy. 1 he touted -- host: could we see a new renegotiated transpacific partnership deal ? presidentmp says vice -- like president obama did he will renegotiate nafta. he has gone after nafta a lot harder than obama did. that is going to be extremely difficult for trump to fulfill his promise, but it's one that
got him elected. caller: good morning gentlemen. ecstatic thati am there will be some good changes coming for all of us americans. one of the issues i am very concerned about has to do with social security. there has been very little mentioned about social security in this campaign. discoveredrch i have hopefully it is true that our government has taken over $3 trillion out of the social security fund. yet no one speaks of this. we are just told social security is in trouble and we have to do something about it. yet they continue to take more money out of it. with my watching what is going on in the campaign, one
of kelly ayotte's republican people running with her brought up the fact she had voted to take another $117 billion out of social security. is this truly going on? if it is, why isn't it a ponzi scheme? what can we the people do to stop washington from draining the social security fund? host: do you have a specific response? guest: there is no doubt about it that social security and medicare are heading for bankruptcy. there will have to be something. that happened in the mid-1990's. congress had last second past the balanced budget act and was able to increase insolvency. because that is not happening next year or in the next five years, social security has more solvency than medicare. at some point they will have to be some reforms and the parties to agree on it.